IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 06.03.2024 CORAM THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR C.S.No.60 of 2021 SEVA BHARATHI, TAMILNADU “SEVA” Second Floor No.79. Alagappa Chettiyar Road Purasaiwakkam Chennai – 600 084 Rep by its Trustee Rabu Manohar .. Plaintiff Versus Surendar @ Naathikan .. Defendant Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules 1956 read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendants.

a) for damages of Rs.1,00,01,000/-;

b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents or anyone acting on the defendant's behalf from posting any messages, pictures or graphical representation of any nature that are defamatory, derogatory or in the nature of threat against the plaintiff;

c) for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to issue a public apology in any national newspaper for the defamatory and derogatory posts against the plaintiff;

d] Awarding cost.

For Plaintiff : Mr.S.Ravi, Senior Counsel for M/s.Gupta and Ravi For Defendant : Set exparte

JUDGMENT

This suit has been filed for damages of Rs.1,00,01,000/- and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from posting any messages that are defamatory or in the nature of threat against the plaintiff and further for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to issue a public apology to the plaintiff in any national newspaper.

2.The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is as follows:

It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a charitable trust engaged in rendering yeoman service for the poor and needy belonging to all sections of the society. It runs various educational and other charitable institutions which provide education and relief to destitute women and the needy. The plaintiff has got a very good reputation in the society. When the matter stood thus, the defendant with a malafide intention telecasted a video in Youtube during the first week of July 2020 under the banner of Karuppar Desam, wherein, the defendant has made completely false, baseless and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff with regard to the alleged murder of two persons inside the police station. It is further stated and alleged in the video, as if, the plaintiff is supported by RSS and he may aim to eliminate the Christianity religion and therefore, the murder has took place and it is further alleged that the plaintiff had deliberately conspired and murdered Mr.Jayaraj and Mr.Bennix, because they belong to Christianity. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the statement and allegations made in the video, is, in fact, is nothing but incitement against the entire Christian community. The plaintiff was portrayed in a bad light in the eye of public. The statement has come up as if the plaintiff has conspired and murdered Mr.Jayaraj and Mr.Bennix, that too in the police custody. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming damages.

3. Defendants remained ex parte, despite service of summons. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked.

P.W.1 – Mr.Rabu Manohar

4. Heard the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff and perused the records.

5. P.W.1, in his evidence, has clearly spoken about the nature of the allegations pressed against the plaintiff by t